Hawkins v. Glover et al

Filing 63

ORDER denying 60 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or Motion for New Trial; denying 62 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on August 28, 2013. (mll)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION JERRY LEE HAWKINS vs. PLAINTIFF Civil No. 4:11-cv-4029 LT. STEVEN GLOVER; CPT. JOHNNY GODBOLT; DR. JOAN MCLEAN; and CPT. LOUISE PHILLIPS DEFENDANTS ORDER Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. (ECF Nos. 60 & 62). Both of these motions ask the Court to reconsider its Order and Judgment Adopting the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Barry Bryant. (ECF No. 58). When the Court entered its Order and Judgment, it had not yet received Plaintiff’s objections to Judge Bryant’s report. (ECF No. 57). Since then, the Court received Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 59) and has now considered them alongside the present motions. “‘Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.’” Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988) (quoting Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246 (7th Cir. 1987)); Fed R. Civ. P. 59(e). Rule 59(e) “permits a court to alter or amend a judgment, but it ‘may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.’” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n. 5, 128 S. Ct. 2605, 171 L. Ed. 2d 570 (2008) (quoting 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1, pp. 127-28 (2d ed. 1995)). The Court has carefully reviewed each of Plaintiff’s motions and finds no manifest errors of law or fact. This case involves several claims of deliberate indifference against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Judge Bryant held a hearing on the matter on April 1, 2013 allowing Plaintiff to testify on his own behalf and examine several witnesses in support of his claims. Thereafter, Judge Bryant found, and this Court agreed, that Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants should be dismissed, except for his claims against Defendant Captain Godbolt. Plaintiff received a judgment against Defendant Goldbolt. Plaintiff now objects to the dismissal of his claims against the other Defendants and the amount of damages awarded against Defendant Godbolt. In his objections, Plaintiff primarily disputes the credibility of the testimony at the April 1, 2013 hearing before Judge Bryant. This objection, however, is insufficient to alter the judgment under Rule 59(e). Plaintiff appears to raise arguments that could have been raised at the hearing or prior to the entry of judgment. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration (ECF Nos. 60 & 62) should be and hereby are DENIED. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED, this 28th day of August, 2013. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey United States District Judge 1 The Court also finds that after considering Plaintiff’s objections to Judge Bryant’s report (ECF No. 59) as timely, and reviewing the record de novo, his objections must be overruled.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?